Supreme Court Holds Special Rules, 1960 Not Applicable Before Joining as Assistant Engineer; Allows Option to Migrate Quotas After Joining

A two-judge Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan heard appeals challenging a common judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala which had dismissed writ appeals and affirmed the Single Judge's order in WP(C) No.5277/2023 concerning seniority and quota entitlement of Assistant Engineers in the Kerala Water Authority. The appeals raised the question whether Rule 4(b) of the Kerala Public Health Engineering Service Special Rules, 1960 applied to draftsmen/overseers at the stage of appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer under the Kerala Public Health Engineering Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 and whether degree-holding draftsmen who accepted promotion under the diploma quota could later claim placement in the degree quota for higher promotion.

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgments of the Single Judge and the Division Bench and restored the seniority drawn up by the authority. It held that the Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 and the Special Rules, 1960 governed separate services and that Rule 4(b) of the Special Rules did not operate at a stage prior to an officer becoming an Assistant Engineer. The Court observed that once a person joined as an Assistant Engineer — regardless of the mode of initial appointment — he or she had the option to migrate to either the degree or diploma quota for purposes of further promotion, subject to the conditions in Rule 4(b). The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "This Court is further of the view that as Special Rules, 1960 deal with a separate service, its Rule 4(b) has no applicability to a stage prior to an officer becoming an Assistant Engineer i.e. to the draftsman/overseer who are holding both degree and diploma qualification and who exercise the option of sitting in 6% (six per cent) competitive exam for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. To put it differently, the said Rule 4(b) has no relevance as to how the person was appointed to the feeder post (i.e. the post of Assistant Engineer) in the service governed by the Special Rules, 1960."

Background

The dispute arose after seniority lists dated 20 April 2022 and 14 February 2023 placed six appellants — former Draftsmen-Grade I who were promoted to Assistant Engineer between 2015–2018 — senior to two private respondents who had been appointed as Assistant Engineers through direct recruitment (including a 6% in-service degree quota). The appellants held engineering degrees obtained before their promotion; they had also participated in the 6% direct recruitment list but declined appointment because they had already been promoted in the 40% promotion quota.

The private respondents filed WP(C) No.5277/2023 challenging the seniority list; the Single Judge and the Division Bench allowed the writ petition on the ground that Rule 4(b) of the Special Rules required an option between the degree (direct recruitment) and diploma (promotion) streams and that those who opted for the diploma quota could not thereafter switch to degree quota for further promotion. The private respondents argued that a draftsman who declined an offered appointment in the degree quota and accepted promotion in the diploma quota became ineligible to migrate to the degree stream.

The appellants contended that appointment to Assistant Engineer was governed by the Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 and that Rule 4(b) of the Special Rules, 1960 applied only after an officer had joined the Kerala Public Health Engineering Service as an Assistant Engineer. The authority and the appellants argued that applying Rule 4(b) to the pre‑Assistant Engineer stage was erroneous and produced irrational distinctions in seniority. The respondents relied on precedent including Chandravathi P.K. v. C.K. Saji (2004) but the Court found that the precedent was not apposite on the facts.

The Supreme Court interpreted the two rule‑sets as distinct, held that Rule 4(b) did not determine how a person reached the feeder post, and clarified that "once a person joins as an Assistant Engineer, he/she has the option to migrate to either the degree or diploma quota", subject to conditions governing seniority. The Court noted the potential for absurdity in the contrary interpretation and applied established principles of statutory construction. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the impugned High Court orders were set aside. No interim directions were recorded; pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 1420‑1422 of 2025 Case Title: Sajithabai and Ors. v. The Kerala Water Authority and Ors. Appearances: For the Appellant(s): Mr. Nikhil Goel, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. V. Chitambaresh, Senior Counsel (for private respondents); Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.1 (Kerala Water Authority) (name not specified in judgment)